May 13, 2004 Minutes

Pittsfield Zoning Board

Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting

May 13, 2004

Chairman Elliott called the meeting to order at 7:09PM

Members in Attendance:
Roll Call was taken; Robert Elliot (RE), Chair, Susan Muenzinger (SM), Robert Lincoln (RL), and Paul Metcalf (PM) were present. Christine Westerberg (CW) was absent due to illness and Glenn Porter (GP) Alt sat in her place.

Review of Minutes:
(SM) listened to tapes from March 10 meeting, and submitted written amendments, which were discussed.

(SM) Made a motion to accept the March 10th minutes as amended and submitted.

(RL) Seconded the motion.

5- 0 voted in favor. Motion carries.

The April 15 minutes were tabled until after the Public Hearings could be heard.

Public Hearing, Variance Rehearing on Density, AHG Properties on Thompson Road:
Chairman Elliot declared the Public Hearing opened at 7:14 pm.

Attorney Gordon Blakeney submitted a Motion of Recusal asking that Chairman Elliott recuse himself stating that a Letter to the Editor Mr. Elliott wrote made him impartial. The letter was published in the Suncook Valley Sun on February 18th and stated that he had an “agenda…to see the tax base broadened …and that one way to make that happen would be to bring in new residential housing…such as upscale semi-retirement homes

(RE) stated that he can be impartial and has proved that in the past. No other members felt he should recuse himself. He stayed.

Testimony for the Variance – Attorney Andrew Sullivan spoke for AHG. On March 13, the Variance for 16 Condo units where 12 Conventional Single family houses would be allowed was denied because the ZBA found that the requirement for substantial justice would not be met. The applicant wanted the Board to re-discuss this one issue. He further stated that testimony at the 3/10 meeting was only positive: increased tax base, no additional children in system, the private road would provide minimum burden to Town Services. He defended that Substantial Justice would be done. Any loss to the individual is not outweighed by gain to the general public; gain/loss would be equal for both the individual and town. There were no other speakers in support of the project.

Testimony against the Variance – Helen Schoppmeyer asked if new evidence would be submitted which would justify conducting this rehearing. (RE) rebutted that yes, new evidence in the form of a new perspective was being submitted by AHG.

Susan Willoughby – 677:2 RSA cited. Rehearing should be run like original hearing – where all 7 criteria should be heard again, not just the one in question. She also asked the Board to consider if rezoning the Rural zone was in the town’s best interest. John Lenaerts supported her citing the NHMA 2003 Municipal Law Lecture Series booklet stating a new hearing with testimony provided in the same manor, as original hearing was necessary. Hank FitzGerald – stated that Jeremiah Lamson spoke to Town Counsel who advised that the Board could elect to rehear the one point or the entire application. Board maintains that one point on Substantial Justice will be addressed. (RL) stated that many projects exist that are good for the town but are not exactly right for the location. This is one of those cases.

Attorney Blakeney – objected to “limitation of scope” addressed at this rehearing. He submitted a supplemental Summary of Opposition on all 7 criteria and spoke to the point of individual v. public gain in terms of Substantial Justice.

Laurel Collyer – stated that 12 “units” will still bring in a tax increase regardless and that the Board should follow the towns wishes as dictated by the ZO.

Rebuttals – Attorney Sullivan corrected that there would be 12 “lots” not “units”. The Sixteen-unit project would produce a positive benefit to the town because 7 of the 27 acres would be displaced in the proposed project. If the town and individual gain is minimized, there is no substantial justice served. He stated that having sixteen units makes it work, 12 lots is the remaining alternative. Granting the 16 would be the needed to have a minimum impact on the property and still provide benefit for the services of the 55+ age restricted community.

Mr. Lenaerts –Asked that the Board not grant the Variance defending that granting the Variance would not produce substantial justice.

Chairman Elliott declared the Public Hearing closed at 7:41PM.

Board Discussion – (RL) stated that the town voted on the Zoning Ordinance and we need to enforce them. He likes the project, but it is not appropriate for the location.

(PM) stated that the appellant should go with the 12 lots until the ZO changes; stick with 2-acre requirement as mandated for the Rural zone. He also wants guarantee that it will remain over 55 age restricted.

(GP) reminded that 20 acres will remain untouched with 16-unit proposal. Roads for 12 homes will need to be maintained roads and will increase town burden.

(SM) stated that an excerpt of Condo docs was submitted. Consent from certain parties can reverse the over 55-age restriction.

(RE) rebutted that the applicant addressed it fairly and firmly that the age restriction would remain.

(SM) recalled that marketability was questioned at the March 10 meeting, that if 12 lots were created, it would increase the cost of condo fee, diminishing marketability to semi-retired and retired people. Town is not gaining that much from granting the 4 extra units. She maintained that you do not have to have new information to conduct a rehearing but a good reason, which can be that the information was not analyzed properly and need to be re-discussed. She found no problem with the previous analysis so she found no reason to change her past opinion.

Hank FitzGerald reminded the board for clarification that AHG is proposing single-family houses not condo units. Mr. Sell has no intention of building 12 condo units, but 12 single-family homes.

(RE) stated he was of the opinion that substantial justice was not being done. But after looking again, he feels it will be done. There would be a 33% increase in income with 16 Condo units. There will be an increase in tax revenues. In regards of rural character, it is better to save 20 acres undeveloped then to develop the entire parcel. There currently are no over 55 housing communities in town. These developments are becoming desirable in many communities. He reversed opinion stating that substantial justice would be done. If we don’t use Zoning Variances, there is no need for ZBA to exist.

(RL) made a motion to deny the Variance

(PM) seconded the motion
3 voted in favor; 2 against. Motion carries, Variance denied.

Public Hearing, Special Exception for 16-unit Cluster Development on Thompson Road, AHG Properties:
It was maintained by the Board that this application would not be discussed. It was rendered moot since the application is for 16 units specifically, which will not exist. A new application is needed. The applicant will not be resubmitting. 8:05 pm

Review of Minutes:
April 15th Minutes- Hank submitted a memorandum re: 4/15 meeting, asking the Board to clarify several points in public record. He stated that the purpose of this memo was to seek clarification on procedures for how the board wanted him to handle given situations. He is not for or against the application. The Board accepted the memo and this document would be added to 5/13 minutes. The Memo from Hank was passed around room, but not returned. Some points of the memo were:

Non-resident testimony was accepted, should they have been? Board will investigate where to draw line on what defines an abutter and if neighboring town residents apply. Attorney Bates will be called.
Should there be a procedure for letters from absentee speakers, so they can be reviewed prior and authenticity verified. Procedures established can be preferred not required. Board maintains that it is reasonable to ask for letters before hand. A few days of courtesy would be appreciated. A week is favorable but if they are submitted and notarized by the Monday before the Thursday meeting, they will be accepted. Letters should be addressed to ZBA or ZBA Administrator. Legitimacy of letters is the issue ultimately. If the author reads their own letter at the meeting, that is acceptable.
Residents who were confused by the ambiguous Public Notice came in to see Hank and he explained the application and answered questions.

Helen Schoppmeyer – asked that notices specifically define what is being discussed.

(SM) agreed stating that people get confused when the type of application is not specified. The past hearing was noticed as home occupation only. The intent was confusing.

Susan Willoughby- suggested that when too much information is submitted at one time the Board should consider tabling the discussion to allow for more time.

4. (SM) stated that domesticated strains of fur baring animals do not refer to dogs. Fur baring animals have fur that is put up for sale like chinchilla, mink, sheep etc. Dog Kennels do not sell dog fur.

The content of the April 15 minutes were briefly discussed with minor grammatical changes being applied.

(SM) moved to approve the April 15, 2004 with minor amendments.

(PM) seconded the motion

5-0 voted in favor. Motion carries.

Members Concerns: None were submitted at that time

(RL) made a motion to adjourn the May 13, 2004 meeting at 8:35 pm
(PM) seconded the motion
5-0 voted in favor. Motion carries.

Meeting adjourned at 8:35 PM

Respectfully Submitted by:

Dina S. Condodemetraky

The May 13, 2004 minutes were approved by 5-0 votes on June 10, 2004.